Am I the only one that wants pictures?  I know if I had a theater like that I would be sending 20 to 30 photos.  From what I can gather from the picture it looks pretty sweet.

OK seriously, how many people have to comment and complain about the lack of pictures and misleading titles before things start changing?

“Bamboo pots, monkey sconces, and a tropical ceiling mural may sound primitive, but this jungle-themed home theater is all about comfort and quality.”

I see clay pots with some bamboo in them and thats it. No monkey sconces, no mural, nothing.  All of this is in the headline. Who keeps letting this stuff get posted? Its the equivalent of saying “I have the funniest story in the world” and then just stopping there with no story to follow.

So yet again I am disappointed!

Sorry to hear you are disappointed Josh. That’s why I posted an editor’s note at the end of the article. We were unable to acquire more photos, but still felt the article was worth publishing. We did our best to describe the setting within the article.

Look at it this way, people who are home theater enthusiasts are very “visual” people. You get into home theater because you want the “visual” experience. A lot of people who own very nice home theaters have no idea what the specs are on half of of their equipment. But they still love to watch because it looks and sounds cool. Writing a story that says “Hey check out this cool HT it has ABC speakers and an XYZ screen” means nothing to the non techies. It means even less when you dont post pictures. I guess I’ll go google “monkey sconce” and then imagine what it “might” look like in a theater.

P.S from the last comments.

Anything worth doing is worth doing right. That includes posting articles. If I had nothing of quality to post I simply would not post anything.

You are correct inwanting to posting about quality.  There certainly is quality to be shown.  Infact its so intriguing it makes us want more….  If some how you could only show us that one picture and than Ninja Smoke would deploy from our screen resulting in the 1 photo vanishing I probably wouldn’t complain as much.

ah, well there’s your problem, you don’t have “Show Ninja Smoke” enabled. check your settings and reload.

If I had nothing of quality to post I simply would not post anything.

Then people like you would be whining that nothing got posted.

It’s a sad state of affairs when you need an image to support anything you read. Perhaps you two would find this link of interest. It has lots of pictures!

Seriously, are you so bored that you can’t find something more interesting to do than cry about not having pictures?

Steve,

The biggest complaint is the titles. EH tries to lure you in with titles that contain things they know people will want to see and then they dont deliver. If this was the 1st article like this it would not be a problem. However it seems that 7 out of every 10 are lacking pictures or in depth decriptions of the things they list in their titles.

Secondly Im not whining/crying,  I enjoy EH and just like any successful business they want feedback from their customers, so they can make it better. They make money by the advertisements on the pages we view. If people are not happy with the pages they will stop viewing them and therefore EH will make less money. It is in their best interest to take ALL feedback GOOD or BAD very seriously. And if you go back and read the comments on all of the EH article you will find that MANY MANY people feel the same way about the misleading titles.

The title is “Jungle Home Theater Really Roars” and the article is about a jungle-themed home theater. I don’t see a disconnect there. They give an equipment list so you can dig deeper into the specs if you want to. I just don’t see a problem.

You posted 3 comments about the same thing, which in my opinion goes beyond giving feedback and drifts into whining. But really I was aiming more at “pete” with that comment.

And if you go back and read the comments on all of the EH article you will find that MANY MANY people feel the same way about the misleading titles.

Links? I read the comments here pretty religiously and I’ve never picked up on this pattern of people feeling the titles are misleading. And again, I don’t see anything misleading about the title on this article.

There’s only one picture?

I know you probably get a big thrill of how a theater sounds and all. But, for those of us who aren’t visually impaired we like the looks as well. So stop wining, ” wa wa wa someone is picking my article apart”! Well guess what we are the people that pay good money for this stuff, and in turn give you a job. Give the people what they want. Good readable information and the pictures to back it up.

Home theater lover and guru.

Steve P.

Give the people what they want. Good readable information and the pictures to back it up.

So you’re saying without pictures, the article has no value to you. Right? So really, there doesn’t need to be an article, just lots of pictures, since you’re saying the text has no value.

So you want a picture book.

It isn’t like the editors are sitting on a stack of photos and just don’t feel like attaching them to the article. As stated, they were unable to get more photos.

This monkey smokes cigarettes, rides a dirt bike, does algebra, teaches kung fu at the Y and sings back up vocals for bruce springsteen. check it out its true

check out this URL http://www.lovesanimals.com/images/animals/monkey/funny_monkey.jpg

sorry, that was the only picture the monkey sent in :( but hey at least I described the cool stuff he does.

Can you even read? I said give us readable information (meaning informative which the article is) and pictures to back it up. I really didn’t think I had to spell it out for you. I mean someone who writes for a living and all. Bla bla bla not sitting on pictures. Maybe you should take this feedback for what it is and improve your articles. Isn’t it all about the readers? Or do you guys just write for your own personal enjoyment. But your Barbie dolls away and take it like a man.

Or check out this site http://www.BarbieCollector.com

Buy the way did you check out the monkey? The title says everything, no need for pictures. :)

Hey Preslar, who the heck are you talking to at this point? Me? Because I sure don’t write for a living…I wish! In case I need to spell this out for you, I certainly didn’t write this article or anything on this site (aside from comments, obviously). I have no idea where you got that idea…

The point I’m trying to make, and I don’t know how I can put this more clearly, is that the article says, as the last line, that the mag was unable to get more photos. Not “We chose not to get them” but that they were *unable* to get them. Maybe whoever owns the theater doesn’t want to let them take photos? Who knows?

So they had two choices: 1)post the article with no pictures or 2) not post the article. You’re faulting them for going with option 1, but then you say the text was informative. That just doesn’t make any sense…

It isn’t like they habitually post “Cool Homes” with no images…clearly the policy is to have a slideshow whenever possible. This one time it apparently wasn’t possible; I just don’t see what the big deal is.

Steve H.

I beleive the point we are trying to make is that we as consumers want the pictures. No one wants to read a title eluding to all sorts of cool stuff and then click to an article that contains no pics of it. The “Secret Door” Article was another perfect example…....the title said “Home theater has cool secret to to access equipment” Again not one picture of any secret anything!

I really thought for sure the whole “monkey” analogy would sum this up for you. Guess not, heres another one.  I could preach all day about unicorns and how cool they are but you would never believe me unless you saw one. (That does not include your my little pony collection)

“Maybe whoever owns the theater doesn’t want to let them take photos? Who knows?”

And maybe a wookie lives on Endore? Who knows?

My point is this, when I sell a theater the home owner has to see it, invision it, as if it were already in there home. This helps them to own the theater before the pen hits the paper. I’m sorry for thinking you wrote this, but now that I know you did go down a notch in my book. What do you have to do with this anyway? 

“HEY EVERYONE! Come check out my Lord of the Rings inspired home theater! It has life size trees in each corner branching up to a forest canopy over head, a laser optic starry night sky, and little hobbits all around. Now instead of listening to rich mind enveloping speakers on my own true HD, better than life, iMAX screen lets sit IN my theater and read about it. If everyone will get out there books and turn to chapter 4 (this one sounds REALLY good)”

Hey we get excited about this stuff. We are visual people. Don’t give a great title and then not let me see it as WELL as read about it.

we as consumers want the pictures.

Yes, I understand that *you* want pictures; you’ve made that pretty clear.
I’m just as much of a consumer as you are, and given the choice of no
article, or an article without pictures, I prefer to have the article (yes,
ideally I’d like to have both so people like you could be happy too, but
apparently that wasn’t possible here). Why is your “vote” more valuable
than mine?

And again the title says “Jungle Home Theater Really Roars”. I still fail
to see anything misleading there. If you’re talking about the sub-title,
yes it refers to bamboo pots (shown), an overhead mural (shown, though the
quality certainly isn’t great) and monkey sconces, not shown.

So you’re saying, you came to this page, read the headline, read the
sub-title, then invested time in reading the text and didn’t see photos
and you feel somehow that you’ve been mis-treated..that your time is too
valuable for you to have come to this page and not been able to see photos.

And yet spending 2 days arguing about the lack of photos is a valuable use
of your time?

Whatever…for myself, I’d rather have more content, and I’d hate to see
ElectronicHouse not post an article just because they don’t have a couple
of pictures… and my page views are just as valuable as yours.

Preslar:
What do you have to do with this anyway?

I read the site, I want them to post more content, not less. I don’t want
them thinking all their readers need “visual aids” in order to be happy.

Don’t give a great title and then not let me see it as WELL as read
about it.

So again, even though you stated the article was informative, you’d rather
they hadn’t posted the article because they had no photos. Is that correct?